rebuilding Iraq heritage seed

[PatrickW]

Dec 28, 2008 13:35:10 GMT -5 PapaVic said:

On the other hand, there are many modern hybrid cultivars into which specific traits have been incorporated from meticulously bred and selected parent lines, and those resulting hybrids have provided farmers with yields that cannot be achieved by any known open pollinated varieties.

Is that true or false? That is my second question.

Bill, this is a really difficult question. Anyone who grows broccoli or corn will tell you the F1 varieties of these are easier to grow and often give better results. On the other hand, there are lots of plant breeders working on this, often with very impressive results.

It's not really a black and white question, but if you pushed me into an answer, I would have to say FALSE.

[PatrickW]

Dec 28, 2008 13:37:09 GMT -5 PapaVic said:

On the otherhand, is there a reason why we should live without hybrid cultivars?

If we are capable of producing beneficial hybrid cultivars at a reasonable cost to the farmer, and the farmer can produce and deliver a crop at a reasonable price to the market, is there a reason why breeders shouldn't continue to produce and sell hybrid seed?

That's my third question.

(First two questions are in posts at the bottom of page 1)

Bill

Okay, you're going to complain if I don't give you a very direct answer to your questions, so here goes.

2. No, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with F1 hybrids.

3. Yes, the way F1 hybrids are produced can be very hard on the environment and involve toxic chemicals. Modern F1 hybrid seeds sold to farmers are nearly always sold with large quantities of chemicals, often made by the same seed company, that are required for use when growing them. These too are energy intensive and hard on the environment. The government subsidies that go into developing and manufacturing hybrid seeds are the only reason they could be cheap, and it's a little stupid to make farmers dependent on a subsidy to buy expensive seeds they don't need in the first place. Hybrid seeds by their nature are very expensive to produce. Finally, buy putting resources into developing commercial hybrid seeds, research into OP varieties suffer.

By promoting OP seeds over F1s it's allowing farmers a greater level of sovereignty over their own finances and operations, because they would be able to save their own seeds.

[PapaVic]

"Okay, you're going to complain if I don't give you a very direct answer to your questions, so here goes." [Patrick]

Unfair. And untrue. I'm only separating and numbering my questions or points in an attempt to keep the discussion orderly. I found previously that making direct points en masse and asking direct questions all in one post resulted in responses that avoided the issue, wandered off into lateral issues, etc.

"No, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with F1 hybrids." [Patrick]

I agree. It's a natural thing for plants to spread pollen. And it's a natural thing for humans to engage in scientifically improving, or at least seeking to improve, domesticated plants.

"Yes, the way F1 hybrids are produced can be very hard on the environment and involve toxic chemicals." [Patrick]

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. There are examples of hybrids that were produced historically in very environmentally-friendly ways. Same is true today. And there are hybrids developed specifically to enable more natural means of cultivation, true?

Besides, we have to consider that all hybrids developed are not developed solely to remain F1 and be marketed or used as F1 hybrids. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of pure breeding lines are open pollinated cultivars resulting from previous hybrid crosses and now maintained as inbred lines. True?

"The government subsidies that go into developing and manufacturing hybrid seeds are the only reason they could be cheap ..." [Patrick]

I assume you mean government moneys, grants and so forth, that go to university agricultural programs where hybrid cultivars are developed to fulfill specific nutritional needs or withstand specific field growing conditions. If so, I don't see that as a bad or wrong use of government money especially if, as you say, it helps reduce the price of the F1 seed. I'm not sure it does; but if so, I don't see it as bad. Why would it be bad?

" ... and it's a little stupid to make farmers dependent on a subsidy to buy expensive seeds they don't need in the first place." [Patrick]

Now, I guess you're talking about farm bill subsidies paid to farmers to enable them to buy F1 seed. That's a different issue than government grants to universities to develop F1 cultivars. But in this case, I'm not sure that farm bill subsidies are intended to support the purchase of F1 seed. I've not seen anything in the U.S. farm bill that says farmers who receive subsidies must buy F1 seed.

And again, here you're saying that farmers "don't need (expensive hybrid seeds) in the first place." Is that just your judgement, or is it true in all cases? Are all farmers who opt to plant F1 seed somehow brainwashed? Have they no choice? Is it not possible that they've observed superior characteristics and results from certain F1 seed over open pollinated varieties available to them?

Sometimes it appears to me that a certain group of people are of the opinion that farmers are not capable of making fully reasonable decisions about their own lives and their own property based upon their own education and scientific knowledge. But I'd rather not veer off into that argument again at the risk of causing another broughaha.

"Finally, (by) putting resources into developing commercial hybrid seeds, research into OP varieties suffer." [Patrick]

With this statement, I must totally and vociferously disagree! Modern hybrid seed production requires the maintenance of vast arrays of pure breeding lines that carry the genes desired in the resulting F1 hybrid seed. Each of these pure breeding lines require extensive research and development. Each line requires continual selection and segregated maintenance. All of these breeding lines are in fact open pollinated.

So, the research devoted to open pollinated varieties actually benefits from the resources put into developing hybrid seed, right?

And each hybrid seed produces a plant that yields F2 seeds, right?

And each F2 generation of seeds holds vast potential as segregants and recombinants of the parental genes, right?

So, there are many new lines of superior open pollinated cultivars potentially lying within each F1 seed, right?

Bill

[PapaVic]

And I guess another issue I touched on in my 3:25 pm post, but which should be expanded upon is that "organic" agriculture has been greatly and can be further benefited by the use of disease-resistant cultivars, pest-resistant cultivars, and cultivars that require less or can thrive on specifically formulated fertilizers.

And much of the research and development that has gone into "organic" horticulture and the development of cultivars better adapted to such agricultural practices are directly associated with government-funded and private corporation-funded programs at land grant U.S. universities and breeding programs associated with such university ag. departments.

And yes, many cultivars recommended for and proven specifically adapted to and successful in "organic" growing conditions are indeed F1 hybrids.

But again, nothing in all I have said negates the fact that farmers and gardeners have free choice in the selection of seeds they wish to grow. No one is forcing anyone to grow solely F1 hybrid seed as far as I have seen and as far as anyone has proven thus far.

Bill

[Alan]

I won't get too much into the politics of this post because I'm sure that everyone knows my stance on seed laws, the USDA and other governmental orginizations.

I do think that hybrids do have their place in agriculture, even in organic circumstances, but perhaps only in such instances where a suitable and disease resistant/high yielding OP can't be found. Of course as a backyard plant breeder I have to recognize the importance of recombination of genes and the characteristics they can bring to the forefront particularly in the segregation and breeding of new open pollinated varieties, as a matter of fact the very reason that I got into plant breeding was in order to fill the gap in my catalog of seeds where there otherwise was not an open pollinated local cultivar, as such I had to use existing hybrids as foundational stock or create new hybrids for such purposes, these options otherwise would not have been available and I would have had to have settled for an OP variety that is not adapted to our environment here in the Ohio Valley.

All in all I have no problem with hybrids.

The things I do have problems with are genetically modified varieties and the toxic chemicals used to treat seeds and our used and marketed and hyped by the company in the growth of mainstream hybrids, all of which I hold in high contempt.

Thanks for keeping this conversation on track guys, lets continue to do so, many good points have been raised thus far.

[grunt]

Besides, we have to consider that all hybrids developed are not developed solely to remain F1 and be marketed or used as F1 hybrids. I'd venture to say that the vast majority of pure breeding lines are open pollinated cultivars resulting from previous hybrid crosses and now maintained as inbred lines. True?

Think about it . . . Every variety we now grow started out as a hybrid (unless someone has been hiding the history of the first BLT).

I prefer growing OP or heirloom varieties simply because I can save the seed and get the same thing again next year (unless some "dirty word" insect gives me an unlooked for cross). In most cases, if you don't know the name of the tomato you are eating, you couldn't tell if it was hybrid or OP. I have grown some very good hybrids, and some not so good OP's, and vice versa.

"Yes, the way F1 hybrids are produced can be very hard on the environment and involve toxic chemicals." [Patrick]

I think that here you are starting to confuse Hybrids with GMO's. I don't know of any method of producing specific hybrids that requires the use of anything environmentally unfriendly, and don't know enough about GMO production to say either way about them. When it comes to growing, I don't know of any hybrids that require any more or less chemicals than OP's, but I do know that for most of the Monsanto produced seeds, there is a requirement to use a lot more chemicals (none of which I will allow on my land) at specific intervals.
And that's as far into discussing GMO's as I am willing to go. We each have our own opinions of them, based on our own knowledge base, and are unlikely to convince each other to change. I'd rather have this continue in the vein it is in now, and stay friendly.

However, let me give you a more specific example of my recent experience. I crossed Cherokee Purple x Bradley tomato. Both parents were commercial source plants, and I seriously doubt their seeds were product of one plant selections or stock suffering from inbred depression. In fact, both parents were very productive and appeared in all respects to be superior examples of their respective lines.

What I'm saying is that the cross produced an F1 that exhibits vigor and production exceeding both Cherokee Purple and Bradley. And I think it shows the suppression of undesirable recessive alleles from one parent by dominant alleles from the other, as I said above.

This will take us on a bit of a side step, but could productivity be a recessive that needs reinforcing to kick in? It might explain inbreeding depression? Just asking, because what I know of genetics is minimal.
I do know that the super productivity of an F1 can be very hard to capture. I've had a few accidental crosses here that have resulted in extreme productivity, and am trying to chase them down and still have other good qualities. It seems that the F2's seldom seem to have the same vigor.
Back to the main thread again, and a final comment on hybrids versus OP. Neither are inherently superior or inferior to the other. In most cases each variety, whether OP or hybrid, has its own particular merits and shortcomings. And neither could exist without the prior existence of the other.
Cheers
Dan

[canadamike]

Which was first? The chicken or the egg?

[grunt]

Precisely!!

[canadamike]

In the same way cucumbers are fruits but we call them veggies, we also often use the word hybrid with a lot of disgust. And it is well deserved, totally in fact.

But it is in a totally different realm than gardening. We are talking ''grocery store '' hybrids, veggies bred for transportation or any other reason than taste, often now, ( I receive commercial catalogs for farmers) to resist and perform under certain pesticides. I saw an european tv show excerpt where an european potato breeder said ''I will never eat the potatoes I breed. They are for the supermarkets, not me, they are tasteless '' So we are talking of a distribution system negating the fundamental role of food, replacing goodness by ''fillingness''. we are buying ounces and pounds, not content.

So, like the cucumber that is a fruit AND a vegetable, depending on the way we approach the question, botanically or practically, we tend to confuse the genres sometimes, or at least not be clear.

So, in my case, let's make it clear: when I give hybrids a well deserved run for their money, IT IS ALWAYS THE GROCERY STORE TASTELESS ONES THAT I MEAN.

Otherwise, refusing hybrids means refusing agriculture and bio-diversity as a whole ( nature itself creating hybrids ALL the time, and as such the capacity, even duty by mankind to better feed itself. Who the heck would I be anyway to spit on 10,000 years of work by our ancestors.

I don't give a damn if it's the egg or the chicken, I leave the question to be answered by philosophers needing to masturbate something else than their weewee...

[mybighair]

"Which was first? The chicken or the egg?"

That one's easy, the egg if your an atheist (like myself).

The birds of our world evolved from the dinosaurs of the past. The dinosaurs layed eggs and while I wouldn't like to define the point that a dinosaur hatched a bird, there is a point where the pro-to bird became a true bird; and that first true bird hatched from a pro-to bird egg. Just as the first chicken hatched from the egg of a pro-to chicken ancestor.

I wouldn't want to draw the line but the line exists.

If you are a creationist then Its the chicken as god created all living things as we know them today.

Which just goes to show, the right answer to any question depends on the beliefs of the individual; that's why nothing is ever as black and white as we would like.

Still, vive le difference.

[canadamike]

And if we keep on going back like that we end up with bacterias( if we want to stop there of course) and they don't have eggs. But then did the first bacteria to change form create the first embryo that evolved into a non bacterial being or into the first new being to create an embryo.... I suspect the whole process is not that hard to approximate for a micro-biologist..but then we were not talking about biology of course, even if we were about life...

But I am sure you understood my point, my dear lil'devil trying to suck us into that debate and then sit back and laugh!! ;D

[mybighair]

Not at all my dear Michel, I was merely trying to illustrate the fact that each of us has our own perspective on life, and that our views are coloured by that perspective.

Ultimately the right answer to many questions is the one that fits your life view. I tend to think that commercial F1 hybrids are one of those issues that polarise people, and that things are less black and white than we would like. But that's the fun of life.

Your response to my comments did give me cause to chuckle though.

[PatrickW]

Dec 28, 2008 23:27:40 GMT -5 grunt said:

I think that here you are starting to confuse Hybrids with GMO's. I don't know of any method of producing specific hybrids that requires the use of anything environmentally unfriendly, and don't know enough about GMO production to say either way about them. When it comes to growing, I don't know of any hybrids that require any more or less chemicals than OP's, but I do know that for most of the Monsanto produced seeds, there is a requirement to use a lot more chemicals (none of which I will allow on my land) at specific intervals.

Commercial hybrids do, by their nature, usually involve a lot more chemicals. Both in the production of the seeds themselves and growing the crops. Rebsie did a good post on hybrids a while back:

daughterofthesoil.blogspot.com/2008/02/commercial-f1-hybrids.html

The way hybrids usually involve a lot of chemicals in the production of the seeds is with respect to Cytoplasmic Male Sterility (CMS). That is when you are producing large numbers of hybrid seeds and you need a way to introduce male sterility in order to force cross pollination between varieties. Rebsie mentions this quickly, in only one sentence in her post, but these chemicals are very toxic. Since food crops are not involved, only seed production, there are almost no environmental regulation of these chemicals.

The reason more chemicals are needed in growing most commercial hybrids is because the seed companies breed them for that purpose. They are the same ones selling chemicals, or collaborate with other companies that do, so they use their plant varieties to promote their chemicals be breeding them in a way that chemicals are needed. If you go to a farm supply place, you will see the seeds and necessary chemicals are always sold side-by-side. Every once in a while I have someone from a distant country who's first language is not English, read my blog, get confused and think I'm a seed store. When they send me an email making an inquiry, it's always for seeds-and-chemicals, never just seeds. It's not just environmental factors that require the use of chemicals, it can also be the varieties themselves.

When you consider that some commercial f1s are supposed to be disease resistant, consider that this is often nothing more than marketing. A few months ago one of my fellow gardeners at my community garden showed me a commercial seed catalog. He was really excited about this particular F1 cucumber, resistant to all known diseases according to the half page promotion of it. Ideal for organic growers it said! We have some diseases associated with outdoor growing of some cucumber varieties (particularly commercial varieties), so this seemed interesting. I went home, and typed the variety name into Google and immediately pulled up the manufacturers 'fact sheet' provided to farmers, and it listed all the pesticides necessary to use when growing it. The list was really long, 8-10 in total, and many had to be applied several times a week.

I went back to the garden and explained this to my gardening friend, and he was sure that the cucumber must still be worth growing. He was sure if they made such a strong claim about disease resistance, there must be some truth to it. There was just no truth to it, the cucumber was breed to need all of these chemicals, and if he grew it in his garden it was simply going to die. I think a lot of people think this way, when they see advertising they know is wrong, they try to believe some part of it must be true.

Think about it. If you grow a cucumber like this in your own garden, what are you going to do? Maybe you'll just write it off to a bad season or a mistake you made. Even if you are smart enough to know you didn't do anything wrong, are you going to write Monsanto a letter and ask for your $3 back from the purchase of the seeds? Even if you are a farmer, you have no chance of getting your money back from a large seed company. These seed companies can claim anything they want and no one can do anything about it, and they know it too. Besides, it's not just the purchase costs of the seeds, itś really the whole season lost trying to grow it.

This is the root of the problem in India, where so many farmers have been killing themselves in recent years after growing GMOs. The farmers respond to wild marketing claims and buy very expensive seeds that are supposed to make them rich, only to find out the seed companies lied, then find themselves bankrupt.

This is really the difference between commercial and self-made f1s.

When you talk about money spent developing f1s also supporting OP varieties, because of the chicken and egg issue, you also have to consider this. Do commercial f1 varieties really have genes we want in our gardens or farms, and are they useful for further breeding?

[PapaVic]

Dec 29, 2008 12:50:14 GMT -5 PatrickW said:

When you talk about money spent developing f1s also supporting OP varieties, because of the chicken and egg issue, you also have to consider this. Do commercial f1 varieties really have genes we want in our gardens or farms, and are they useful for further breeding?

In many cases, and as far as I'm concerned, YES!

Bill

[canadamike]

I agree wholeheartedly with you, Patrick, but the conundrum is the same.

It is not breeding that is at fault but the way it is done.It has nothing to do with hybrids, from a biological standpoint, Bill is absolutely right, only somebody thinking strawberries grow in trees can deny it. You are also right but this is a totally different discusssion. As simple as that.

In commercial hybrids, there is the word commercial, hence an intent on the part of the breeder, who is paid so you eat shit that loves trucking and pesticides.

Breeding is an art performed by the first agricultural civilizations to better the food crop. The intent is pure nourishment. quite a different...truckload ;D

You can't put an intent on a tomato, blame the breeder, or best, the friggin asshole food chain that requires you get fed with cheap crap.

But don't blame breeding, you simply would not be around to do so if it wasn't for it.

And hey, if it's healthy and good in my mouth, it's good. As simple
as that.